Abstract:Circulation, Volume 146, Issue Suppl_1, Page A13931-A13931, November 8, 2022. Background:TAVR is increasingly performed in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), including those with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). There is a paucity of data on the safety and efficacy of TAVR in the latter group since they were excluded from the landmark trials which established TAVR as a favorable alternative to surgery. Prior studies have shown higher rates of permanent pacemaker placement (PPM) and paravalvular leak (PL) but comparable rates of embolic stroke (ES) and mortality in BAV patients who underwent TAVR when compared to those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). We examined the impact of aortic valve anatomy on inpatient mortality and complication rates using current data from the largest inpatient database in the United States.Methods:We queried the 2016-2019 National Inpatient Sample database to identify all patients over 18 years of age who underwent TAVR for AS. Patients were stratified to BAV and TAV groups using ICD-10 codes. Greedy nearest neighbor propensity score matching was performed based on demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, hospital characteristics, insurance status, and median income. Outcomes of interest included rates of mortality, PPM, PL, ES, and length of hospital stay (LOS).Results:Of 192,100 AS patients who underwent TAVR, 0.5% had BAV. After propensity score matching, 995 BAV and 995 TAV patients were included in the final analysis. The overall mortality rate was 1.5% with no significant difference between the two groups [OR 1.00 (0.20-5.060), p=1.00]. Rates of PPM were 10.1% in BAV and 8.5% in TAV patients with no significant difference [OR 1.20 (0.61-2.37), p=0.61]. Rates of PL were 1% in BAV and 0.5% in TAV patients with no significant difference [OR 2.01 (0.18-22.65), p=0.57]. Rate of ES was 1.5% in BAV patients; however, direct comparison to its propensity-matched TAV cohort was not feasible since the latter group had no events in this analysis. There was no significant difference in the LOS between the two groups.Conclusion:Insight from this large database suggests that in the current era, TAVR has similar short-term outcomes in both BAV and TAV patients. Further studies with long-term follow-up on valve function and the need for reintervention will be needed, especially since this involves younger patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: from the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

Severe Symptomatic Bicuspid and Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis in China: Characteristics and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with the Venus-A Valve (vol 2, pg 60, 2018)

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with a Severe Stenotic Bicuspid Aortic Valve in a Chinese Population.

30-Day Outcomes after Surgical or Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Regurgitation

Three-year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves

Twelve-month Outcomes of the TaurusOne Valve for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Characteristics and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in China: a report from China aortic valve transcatheter replacement registry (CARRY)

Clinical practice and prognosis of emergent transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Comparison of Procedural, Clinical and Valve Performance Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Patients With <i>Severe</i> Aortic Stenosis

[Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Domestic Prostheses for Patients with Severely Stenotic Bicuspid Aortic Valve].

Midterm Outcome of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low to Intermediate Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate-low risk: a Meta-analysis

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation with the Self-Expandable Venus A-Valve and CoreValve Devices: Preliminary Experiences in China.

Clinical efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis based in a single Chinese center

Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis.

Abstract 13931: Comparison of Inpatient Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: An Insight From National Inpatient Sample

Coronary Access after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis

Midterm Clinical Outcomes after Isolated Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis

Transcarotid Versus Trans-Axillary/Subclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis